Jessica Morden: The recent decision on Velcade, according to press reports, is a huge blow to thousands of myeloma patients, as it is one of the only treatments for that type of bone marrow cancer. As the decision appears to have been made on the basis of cost, will the Minister urgently review the value that NICE places on treatments that extend life, which are crucial for patients and their families—if the reports turn out to be true?

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I pay tribute to her work with the International Myeloma Foundation, and I know of her personal interest in the matter. We are asking NICE to take some extremely difficult decisions on our behalf, and although I understand her points, it is important that it is able to do its work, and to consider all the evidence on the clinical effectiveness of treatments, free from political interference. That is the right position. There is an ability to appeal against any NICE decisions, and the final appraisal determination is still subject to such appeal. At this stage, it would be inappropriate to comment further.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that there is not a constituency in the country that does not have myeloma sufferers. Cannot more money be made available for this drug treatment, as it is the only treatment that can work and prolong life? We should have a special fund, and take the decision away from NICE by making extra moneys available. Will he consider that if NICE refuses to recommend the drug?

Andy Burnham: I believe that it would be irresponsible for someone in my position to build expectations in people that they can safely have access to every drug that comes along. The responsible course is to arrange an independent appraisal process—as we did with NICE—that balances clinical effectiveness with cost-effectiveness.
	I see reports week after week about every new wonder drug that comes on to the market; no doubt the hon. Gentleman does as well. It is simply not right to jump on the bandwagon for political purposes whenever a new drug comes along. A broader, more balanced view must be taken of whether treatments are effective or not. We must give a clear line to the public, and not raise false expectations. That is what NICE has been seeking to do, and Opposition parties have supported it before. I believe that it is when decisions are difficult that we owe NICE the most support, and all parties in the House should provide that support at this time.

Andy Burnham: It is important to keep such matters under review, but, as my hon. Friend will know, the Government have made huge progress in the treatment of patients suffering from cancer across the board, in terms of both access to treatment and the treatments available. As I have said, we do fund those treatments. Of the 26 cancer drugs referred to NICE, 25 have been approved. That clearly shows that NICE is helping people in need to obtain treatments.
	I heard what my hon. Friend said about his personal experience of a family member with this condition. It is an awful condition—I do not deny that—but I should point out that every new treatment that comes along is not necessarily the best option. We must see the position in the round, and ensure that funds go into improving services across the board rather than simply paying for every new treatment that comes on the market.

Andy Burnham: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they have received a reply. The Secretary of State wrote to the individuals concerned last week, explaining precisely the process that NICE has been through. That reply has been sent, and was dated 23 October.  [Interruption.] It is important—without, as I have said, raising the temperature for political purposes—to offer NICE some support at the time of this difficult decision.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman does not have a medical background and I do not have one. Yet when asked on television on Sunday whether he would allow the drug to be prescribed and paid for if he were Health Secretary, he said that he would—a direct contradiction of what he said in the House just a couple of weeks ago. There is a need for some consistency in this argument. Patients out there need consistency and they do not want mixed messages or double standards simply because it is politically convenient to get off the front pages of the newspapers, as the hon. Gentleman—

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Partly thanks to advances in medical practice and modern medical technology, it is now possible to give patients care in a local GP surgery, health centre or, indeed, in their own homes, which could until recently be provided only within an acute hospital. What we found in the huge public engagement that led up to the "Our health, our care, our say" White Paper in January was that, where it is safe and right, people prefer treatment to be given to them in their GP surgeries or, if possible, in their own homes.

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. There is more money going into the NHS in every part of the country than ever before—funding that was of course made possible by an increase in national insurance contributions which the hon. Gentleman and his party opposed. In deciding how much money should be allocated to each local primary care trust, we take into account the age of the population, especially the proportion aged 65 or older, and the burden of disease, including the fact that in some communities life expectancy is far lower and the death rate from, for instance, cancer and heart disease is far higher. We believe in fair funding; it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to do so.

Patricia Hewitt: I am glad to say that, following the strategy of moving services into the community, we have recently announced a dermatology service in Hull, which is one of the 30 care closer to come demonstration sites that we announced last week. It will make care more convenient for patients in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Diana Johnson: I very much welcome the move of the NHS into the community but I am concerned about the delay in receiving that good quality community facility in Orchard Park, which is one of the most deprived wards in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend look into the delays that have been caused by Hull city council dragging its feet on planning permission?

Patricia Hewitt: I very much understand my hon. Friend's concern about the delays in the Orchard Park scheme. My understanding is that there were changes to the design and the site that have caused some delays. I am told that the local NHS is now finalising its discussions with Hull city council and they should close the agreement for the scheme in a matter of weeks. It will then go ahead along with the other LIFT—local improvement finance trust—schemes in Hull which are so significantly improving local health care for my hon. Friend's constituents.

Caroline Flint: I hope that everyone heard that plea for more funding for the NHS. I cannot comment on the hon. Lady's letter, as I have not seen it, but more health professionals are working in the community than ever before. The inroads on health inequalities that we are achieving are due to the fact that we are working on prevention as well as just treatment. Moreover, there is more help in the community available for those who have suffered heart attacks or cancer. Those who plan health services must look closely at what works and what does not. There are plenty of good examples around the country, and I urge the hon. Lady to come and see how that planning can be done well.

Caroline Flint: I want to say two things to my hon. Friend. First, I accept that the reorganisation of the PCTs may not have been everyone's desired outcome, but we have made sure that dealing with health inequalities is an essential part of their role and responsibility when it comes to commissioning services to meet the local population's needs. Therefore, every PCT, regardless of shape, must look at where the health inequalities are in its area and make sure that it delivers appropriately.
	Secondly, we are devoting more attention to dealing with the different determinants that affect people's life chances and health. Our work with local authorities is very important in that respect, as are the mandatory targets for health inequalities in local area agreements. The forthcoming White Paper will ensure that there is a good working partnership with local communities in the delivery of health. However, I will look at what my hon. Friend has said, and get back to him.

Caroline Flint: It was a decision that Parliament made when we decided to devolve different powers to Scotland. In fact, we have the shortest waiting times on record; we are working to reach our 18-week target. Fewer people are dying from cancer, coronary heart disease and stroke than ever before— [Interruption.]

Caroline Flint: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	We want the sort of services that meet people's needs, which currently may not be met. That means re-evaluation of services currently run in hospitals, to see where better they might be provided, so that we can make sure that everybody, regardless of where they live, has access to a good service.

Stephen Hepburn: Eight people in the UK die every day from mesothelioma—an asbestos-related cancer contracted predominantly by poorer working-class people who were exposed to asbestos in their workplace. One of the best ways to address inequalities in the health service is to treat those people, so when will the Minister put her weight behind prescribing the drug, Alimta, which is the only effective treatment for mesothelioma, so that it is freely available on the NHS to those people who need it?

Andrew Dismore: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that that record would not have been achieved without the setting of targets. Will she commend the new out-patients' oncology department at the Royal Free, which has state-of-the-art facilities? Will she also look at ensuring that patients who go to Barnet hospital who are in need of tertiary care are referred to the Royal Free, rather than Mount Vernon hospital, as at present? That would enable them to take advantage of the excellent record at the Royal Free and would mean that they could have treatment closer to home, using transport links rather more effectively.

Rosie Winterton: They certainly will not be toothless talking shops. When we carried out our consultation, it was clear that some people felt that there was duplication, and that their inspections were not taken that seriously. We want to empower LINks to gather people's views about local services and to hold to account primary care trusts and local authorities for the way in which they assess local need and commission services. I know that the Opposition would reinstate a top-down approach—

Ivan Lewis: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I, too, pay tribute to the staff of Staffordshire hospital who have worked to make the health service the high-quality service that the people of Stafford have the right to expect. As for the specific question of imaging scans, from April 2006, people who do not receive an appointment within 20 weeks are offered the choice of a scan from another provider within that period. We are driving the system to ensure that there is a guaranteed minimum standard. The great prize for the national health service is the historic 18-week target from the door of the GP surgery to the door of the operating theatre. The achievement of that target would be the greatest manifestation of a modern health service, and it would effectively mean the ending of waiting lists in the NHS. We will ensure that our staff receive all the necessary support to enable us to deliver that historic goal.

Paul Rowen: What estimate has the Minister made of the increased costs of the reconfiguration that resulted in the downgrading of Burnley general hospital and Rochdale infirmary, and what is the impact on funding formulae? One of my constituents suffered an accident in Whitworth on Saturday night, and was collected by an ambulance that came from Preston. How many extra ambulances are needed to serve those communities?

Janet Anderson: May I tell my right hon. Friend that a recent consultation in my constituency in Rossendale showed a clear demand for the retention of community health provision in the Rossendale valley, and that before the end of the year the East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, the PCT and Rossendale borough council will be submitting a bid for funding to establish a health campus in the Rossendale valley? I hope that when that arrives on her desk, she will give it serious consideration.

Rosie Winterton: May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that not only has there been extra funding in his area, but there have been increases in staff numbers and equipment? When there are changes to services, a clear pattern must be followed. There is local consultation and the matter can be referred to the overview and scrutiny committee, so that if there are issues about inadequate consultation or detriment to services, those can be referred to the Secretary of State. I hope the hon. Gentleman will encourage his constituents to participate in consultation processes.

Bob Blizzard: what role she expects food retailers to play in the strategy to tackle child obesity.

Bob Blizzard: I recently presented IT equipment to schools in my constituency as part of the Tesco computers for schools initiative, and it occurred to me that much of the money that families spend to obtain the vouchers goes on crisps, sweets and chocolate, which make children obese. I suggested to Tesco that it should amend its scheme by excluding such products from the eligible spend for the vouchers or by giving double points for fruit and vegetables. Will my hon. Friend support that idea? And does she agree that it is a great opportunity for Tesco, Britain's leading food retailer, to send a powerful message and to lead the way in the fight against childhood obesity?

David Anderson: how much was spent by the NHS on management consultants in the last year for which figures are available.

Richard Shepherd: Further to that point of order, Sir. After your very generous clarification of the position, would it be in order to make an oral request for such a process to take place?

Adam Holloway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on reports in  The Times that my former employer, ITN, is to have its reporting from war zones restricted by the Ministry of Defence. Given the extreme difficulties in reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan without MOD co-operation, and the importance of the public's being allowed access to ITN's first-hand reporting, is it not appropriate that a Minister should come to the House of Commons to explain what lies behind this enormous decision, which looks very much like an attempt to punish a major news organisation for speaking the truth?

Mark Lancaster: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that toughened plastic be used for drinking vessels in late night bars, public houses and clubs; and for connected purposes.
	My Bill is an attempt to reduce the number of people who are seriously injured during alcohol-related violence. In a nutshell, it would enable local authorities to designate, if required, "drinking districts" in town and city centres where it would be mandatory for alcohol served after 11 pm to be served in plastic or toughened glass. I wish to make it clear from the start that my Bill would have a relatively narrow impact on selected licensed premises—namely, late-night venues in busy town and city centres. It is certainly not intended that it should have an impact on the many traditional stand-alone pubs and private members' clubs in towns and rural communities that keep more traditional hours.
	In Milton Keynes, we are only too aware of the dangers of glass bottles and glasses. In the early hours of Christmas morning 2004, a constituent of mine, Blake Golding, was the victim of a brutal attack while working as doorman. At the age of 22, he was shockingly scarred for life while he went to the aid of a female colleague. The sad fact is that that horrendous incident could have been prevented had Blake's attacker not had access to a glass bottle.
	The terrifying truth is that bars and clubs have extremely dangerous weapons at arm's reach. A glass or bottle is potentially lethal in anybody's hands. On 14 June 2005, a campaign was set up by the Golding family. As a result, more than 18,000 people, including hundreds of police officers and bar managers, have signed a petition calling for a ban on glass drinking vessels in late-night clubs and bars. The success of the campaign is a testament to the determination of the Golding family and the support shown by the local press and institutions.
	Unfortunately, the problem of annealed bottles and glasses being used as violent weapons has largely remained unaddressed. I am not the first to raise the issue on the Floor of the House, and I fear that if we do not make changes soon, I will not be the last. These are readily available weapons with the potential to kill or cause great harm, as Blake's case demonstrates. Hon. Members may be surprised to learn that glass bottles and glasses are the most common weapons used in violent assaults in the United Kingdom. That is not unexpected when we consider how many drinks are served in glass containers each year. In the UK alone, more than 5.6 billion pints are served in bars, pubs and clubs, along with almost 6.8 million bottles of beer, 4.2 million bottles of alcopops and 313,000 bottles of wine. Research shows that there is a strong correlation between alcohol consumption and violent behaviour. A study by the Prime Minister's strategy unit found that 1.2 million incidents of alcohol-induced violence are reported every year. The 2005 British crime survey points out that in 44 per cent. of all violent incidents reported, the victim described the assailant as being under the influence of alcohol at the time of the assault. Everyone is aware of the associated risks of glass drinking vessels. Unfortunately, it takes a tragic event such as that involving Blake to shock people into supporting a proposed change to the law.
	I must take this opportunity to congratulate Bar Mee in Milton Keynes. It became the first bar in the city to serve drinks solely in safe plastic glasses and bottles, in an attempt to reduce the number of bottle attacks. I also praise the policy of Yates's wine bars, which has already made the switch to using shatterproof plastic glass in all its establishments nation wide. It is our job to support such initiatives, and to make multilayered plastic bottles and glasses the norm in bars and clubs throughout the country which operate late at night and in the early hours of the morning.
	Many other towns and cities across the United Kingdom are experiencing a rapid expansion of their night-time entertainment districts. Although many communities enjoy the economic benefits that that brings, unfortunately such expansion is often accompanied by an increase in crime and disorder owing to the concentration of pubs and clubs and the large amounts of alcohol that are consumed. In 2003 in Glasgow city centre, there were 313 serious assaults, 81 of which involved glass bottles, and similar statistics apply in any part of the country where a central drinking quarter has sprung up. In Glasgow, steps were taken to replace glass with plastic and that, combined with other measures taken by the police, has helped to result in a reduction in the number of serious injuries in the city centre.
	Clearly, we have to accept that if someone really wants to act in a violent manner, a weapon will invariably be found. Although I do not believe for one second that this Bill will eradicate all violent behaviour, I do believe that, by reducing the number of weapons available to violent people, the Bill will make a major contribution to increasing public safety. If the glass used to attack Blake Golding in Milton Keynes had been multilayered plastic or polycarbonated glass, he would not have suffered the degree of injury that he did.
	More than half of the reported incidents of alcohol-related violence result in some form of injury. In a fifth of those incidents, the perpetrator of the attack had a weapon that they had threatened to use—usually a glass or bottle. Steps have been taken across the country to reduce that, and I would like to praise the work of Cardiff council and Cardiff police for the dramatic 70 per cent. reduction in altercations involving glass bottles and glasses that they have produced through their proactive work in stopping people carrying glass drinking vessels on the streets of Cardiff.
	I shall now turn to the need for the Bill. The Licensing Act 2003 does not allow licensing authorities to add a condition to a premises licence unless an application for review of the licence is made or, during the application process for a new or varied licence, a representation is made by a responsible authority such as the police or another interested party. With all premises licenses issued and valid indefinitely, the opportunity to consider whether a glass condition could be added to a licence now only arises if a review is sought or the licence is varied.
	To use Milton Keynes as an example, Thames Valley police have been making representations where variations have been sought, and approximately a dozen premises now have the condition. But for existing unchanging premises, conditions can only be imposed if a review has been requested—for example, by the police as a responsible authority. There appears to be some difficulty in obtaining evidence against individual premises in city centre locations, particularly when incidents occur in the street. The local publicity that Blake Golding's campaign received did lead to voluntary compliance by pubs and clubs being achieved, but management and ownership do change, and without a condition on the premises, licence enforcement is simply not possible.
	The pepper-potting of premises with conditions alongside those without conditions in the city centre area also gives rise to problems, particularly in respect of external drinking areas, and such problems will, no doubt, increase with the implementation of the smoking ban next summer. Even where a premises is subject to a condition, it is easy to see how a situation can develop where people take glasses and bottles to use as weapons from tables outside adjacent premises where there is no restriction.
	A typical drinking establishment found in many city and town centres usually operates as a
	"high volume vertical drinking premises"
	—a high turnover establishment where the vast majority of people are standing to drink, not sitting down. Although often not the fault of management, it is in these establishments that violence can erupt as young adults are encouraged to drink in a crowded environment. For that reason, local councils should have the power to establish, where necessary, "drinking districts" in which it would be mandatory for any licence holder serving alcohol after 11 pm to use multilayered plastic drinking vessels. Village and stand-alone town and city pubs not in a designated drinking district would not be forced to serve their local customers with plastic drinking vessels. However, the current laws would allow councils to place mandatory regulations on these premises, should the police deem their safety record poor.
	Although the Bill's scope is relatively narrow, it is clear that plastic bottles and glasses would allow for a safer drinking and social environment, lessen insurance premiums for pubs and clubs and provide a safer working environment for bar staff to operate in. However, these are just small benefits compared with the opportunity to save lives and to prevent serious injuries.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mark Lancaster, Mr. Frank Field, Peter Bottomley, Andrew George, Dr. Brian Iddon, Mr. Peter Bone, Mr. Mike Hancock, Dr. Phyllis Starkey, Mr. Adam Holloway, Julie Morgan, Mr. Ben Wallace and Mr. David S. Borrow.

Mr. Mark Lancaster accordingly presented a Bill to require that toughened plastic be used for drinking vessels in late night bars, public houses and clubs; and for connected purposes.: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 November, and to be printed [Bill 231].

David Howarth: Is not the real difference between evidence on the one side and information on the other? Does not that mean that, in the United States, it is possible for someone to challenge the evidence on the substance of the case against them, in terms of whether it is believable and whether it could be negated—or, to use the American term, obliterated—by other evidence? In this country, however, that is not possible. That is an important difference, and the Minister should recognise that that is the difference that she is talking about.

David Howarth: rose—

Joan Ryan: For an individual for whom the courts are considering an extradition order, there is lengthy due process. Not only does the prosecutor consider the case but a certificate must be issued in the Home Office. The case goes to a district court, and it can be appealed to a higher court, the House of Lords and the European Court. Due process protects the rights of our citizens. If those citizens stand accused of serious crime, however, we should facilitate justice. That is what this Act and treaty are all about.

Lynne Jones: rose—

Joan Ryan: However, my hon. and learned Friend gets to the crux of the matter. As I said, this is about justice. Under either system, and whatever level of evidence has been required, the United States has extradited more quickly to us than we have done to it.

Emily Thornberry: Can my hon. Friend give specific reassurance to a group of my constituents from the Muslim Welfare House who are especially concerned that if one of their number were to be extradited they could end up in Guantanamo bay?

Joan Ryan: I know that that has been an issue of concern for several hon. Members, so I am grateful for the opportunity to address that point. When a judge in this country is making a decision about an extradition warrant, they have to apply the European convention on human rights. If we extradite someone to the United States and they are then removed to a detention centre such as Guantanamo bay, that would in our view be a breach of their human rights. If our courts, when hearing an extradition request, thought for one moment that a breach of human rights would occur, they would not extradite. If they did extradite and there were a breach, it would never happen again, because our courts would refuse to extradite on that basis. We would immediately be in a situation in which the US was no longer designated in that category.
	I wish to add what is perhaps the most important point. We seek assurances on such matters, where appropriate, from the US. For instance, when we extradite someone who has committed an offence that would carry the death penalty in the US, we seek assurances that that penalty will not be applied to the citizen we are extraditing. Similarly, in cases such as those that my hon. Friend mentions, we seek assurances, and we have been given assurances. I can tell my hon. Friend that the US has never breached the assurances that it has given. I hope that that covers the point that she has raised with me.

David Winnick: The situation in Guantanamo bay is very worrying for many of us, but when the magistrate who deals with such applications for extraditions to the US gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, he was asked if he would ever agree to the extradition of anyone who could end up in that place—which should not even exist. He said that if he thought that there was any such danger, his response would be to reject the application. I hope that that continues to be the position.

Joan Ryan: I can assure my hon. Friend that our prosecutors look seriously at such matters. I refer him back to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore): of course these issues have been raised, and the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary are having conversations with the Attorney-General of the United States about the system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) said, this is not just about the United States—although I am afraid that in this instance it is, because those are the amendments before us. Perhaps he, like me, is thinking that there are 50 countries in this category. I can reassure him that one of the strengths of our prosecution system is that it is independent of the judiciary. We do not wish to discard that, and the amendment would mean that we had to discard it.
	Our prosecutors do consider the cases. As I have said—I hope that this reassures my hon. Friend, because we have seen cases in which this has happened—if the prosecutors, such as the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the Financial Services Authority, decide that there is a case to answer here, that takes precedence. That is why the amendment is both unnecessary and wrong. However, the Government recognise that much concern has been expressed about the fairness of our provisions—rightly or wrongly—and that there is a widespread perception that there is a lack of clarity. In view of that, as I have said, the Attorney-General has already raised the issue with his counterparts in the United States.
	As I also said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, the proposed procedures envisage early consultation on any case which it appears to a prosecutor in one country that there is a real possibility of a prosecutor in the other country having an interest in prosecuting. That does not need to be repeated further. Reassurance has been provided on that point. These proposals would not contain the serious flaws of the Opposition's forum amendments, and would, I am sure, provide business people and others with reassurance that the Government have listened to their concerns and taken action. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will meet the Attorney-General in the next few days to discuss these matters, to take that forward.

John Denham: Non-lawyers such as I tread into these areas with some hesitation. The danger of being caught out on a finer point of law is ever-present.
	In considering the Lords amendments before us today, it is important to look a little at the history of how we came to be in the position that we are in. There is no doubt that the emotion that runs around this set of Lords amendments is, unfortunately, coloured by the way that the Extradition Act 2003 and the treaty, and the unilateral arrangements in respect of the USA, came into being, rather than by merely the merits of the issues that we are addressing. It is important that we make that distinction, and also that we record some proper concerns about the process that has led to where we are today.
	Let me give some key dates. On 28 November 2002, the Home Affairs Committee—chaired by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—reported on the Extradition Bill. Its Second Reading took place on December 2002, the treaty was agreed at the end of March 2003, and the legislation was enacted at the end of that session. The USA was added to list 2 of the legislation at the end of 2003, and, by that, the unilateral decision was taken to drop the evidence requirements on the USA. The Senate has only now ratified the treaty.
	There should be some concerns about the speed at which those events took place. When—before I chaired it—the Committee reported on the Extradition Bill in 2002, it reported the Home Office position at that time. The Home Office had stated that
	"there is a case for removing the prima facie evidential requirement from certain Commonwealth countries and bilateral treaty partners"
	but
	"there are no current plans to negotiate bilateral extradition treaties with any new countries".
	That was reported in November 2002, and the treaty was finalised and agreed at the end of March 2003—a very short period later.
	The Extradition Act has always worried me because I was the Minister of State who moved the Bill's Second Reading on 9 December 2002. Since that time I have been unable to remember anything that was under way with the USA in respect of these matters. Short-term memory loss is always a possible explanation in this place, but parliamentary protocol requires that if a Bill is not introduced by a Secretary of State, it is introduced by a Minister of State rather than an Under-Secretary of State, so I was not the sponsor-Minister of the Bill; I picked it up, as it were, at the last moment, to move it.
	There was almost no reference at all in that debate to the United States of America. Indeed, about the only one I can find was made by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who asked for an assurance. He said:
	"As the Minister is aware, many important extraditions have not gone ahead because of...article 3 of the European convention on human rights",
	and he referred to
	"the Soering judgment, in which someone accused of murder could not be extradited to the United States"
	because of that convention, and he asked:
	"What will the Bill do to try to streamline such cases and make the extraditions go ahead?"—[ Official Report, 9 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 40.]
	So to the extent that any interest was shown in the United States in that debate, it concerned speeding up extraditions from this country to the USA, and the point was made by the right hon. Member for Witney, who is now the Leader of the Opposition. That was the tone of the discussion.

John Denham: When the Home Affairs Committee held a one-day hearing on this matter last November with Judge Timothy Workman—my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) mentioned him earlier—and the then Minister with responsibility for such matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), we attempted to get a detailed timetable and copies of draft treaties from the Home Office, so that we could see the treaty's evolution and pin down its timing. Understandably, the Home Office could not provide draft treaties, because doing so would have breached our diplomatic relations with a foreign country, so I have been unable to pin down the timing. I therefore do not know why the treaty was agreed so rapidly. I merely make the point that if that had been avoided, what is a now a very emotive discussion could have taken place on a more rational basis.

John Denham: It has to be my assumption that the reverse is the case. I have taken part in many debates in this House as a Minister, and I have occasionally had cause to be not entirely satisfied with the quality of the briefing that one gets. But if a treaty had been under negotiation, it is extraordinarily unlikely that the Home Office would have told my predecessor Committee that there were no plans to negotiate a further treaty, or that I, as a Minister, would not have had something of that sort drawn to my attention in the background notes, given the obvious danger of misleading the House of Commons, were one to be asked about such matters. It seems more likely, although I cannot be certain about it, that the treaty was negotiated in short order.
	We therefore approach today's debate against the background of several high profile cases that have had a great deal of publicity, some of it wildly misleading about the case against individuals, in a position whereby the treaty was not in force and only half the agreement had been implemented—unilaterally by this country. That has overshadowed the debate.
	I believe that we should resist the Lords amendments on the substance of the issue. I shall make three brief points and outline one aspect to which the Government need to give much greater attention. Reciprocity is important but it has never been an absolute principle in our law. For a long time after introducing the Extradition Act 1870, we extradited people to many countries that, on constitutional grounds, never extradited anyone back to us. Parliament took the view that it was better to serve the interests of justice in one direction even if they were not served in the other. Reciprocity is not an absolute principle.
	Whatever concerns most of us have about many other justice systems, there is no doubt that, if the United States did not have a constitutional bar to dropping the requirement for prima facie evidence, it would, like the other 50 countries on the list, be a country with which we had an agreement not to require prima facie evidence. I accept that, as Baroness Scotland said, there is no absolute parity in the test. Her comments were accurate and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) referred to them earlier. However, is the difference so great that it creates genuine injustice or are we pursuing a difference because we do not like the US at this time in politics?
	Without the constitutional bar in the US to dropping the requirement for prima facie evidence and with a requirement for information on both sides, we would show little hesitation in reaching an agreement. In that case, people would be extradited from the US on exactly the same basis as people are extradited from this country under the treaty. The big question is, therefore, whether the difference is so great that we should support the Lords amendment. I do not believe that it is.
	My second point is about "forum", which the Lords amendments cover. If the process had been more open and the treaty had been up for a longer period of discussion and debate, we could have sorted out many such matters. Determining the appropriate jurisdiction is complicated. There were genuine concerns about the European arrest warrant when one of those accused of taking part in the 21 July attempted bombings fled to Italy. We were worried that demands could be made to try him in Italy because it was suggested that he might have committed offences there. We said that that would be wrong and that he must return here, where the major crime took place. There are matters of judgment, and I am unclear from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary's comments about the exact criteria that the Crown Prosecution Service is expected to use when judging whether someone should be tried here, if that is possible, or in the US, if that is possible. Those criteria should be made explicit. They do not form part of the treaty arrangements and that is why we should not support the amendments, but the Government need to set out more clearly the basis on which we expect the CPS to make such decisions.

David Heath: It is a genuine pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). It must be a bitter-sweet experience for those on his Front Bench to see an intelligent and perceptive former Minister rise to make the kind of comments that he has just made. They have taken our discussion forward in a real sense.
	I rise to support the retention of the Lords amendments. That should not come as a surprise to the House, as we have been entirely consistent in our position on these matters ever since they were first put before the delegated legislation Committee on which I served and in which we voted against these provisions. We did so because we believed that they were an affront to what ought to be expected on behalf of British citizens in relation to the reciprocity of the agreements. In the interests of justice, and as far as British citizens were concerned, we felt that we should resist a one-sided treaty of this kind. We have not resiled from that position in any way since then.
	Listening to the debate on the issues, however, I have detected three convenient fictions that have been propagated since that time. The first is that those who oppose the treaty—and, therefore, the unequal provisions—are doing so in response to an expensive public relations campaign mounted on behalf of certain individuals, and that this is all a matter of the guilt or innocence, presumed or otherwise, of the NatWest three or, now, the chief executive of Morgan Crucible. That is emphatically not the case. My colleagues and I opposed this measure long before any of those cases were being considered, because we believed in the justice of the case that we were putting forward.
	I obviously hope that those British citizens are found not to have been guilty of the crimes of which they have been accused, but I have no way of knowing the guilt or innocence of those individuals. That is not for me to say; it is for a court to determine guilt or innocence. My job, and the job of all parliamentarians, is to consider the process by which our citizens face a court in a foreign land thousands of miles away on charges of questionable validity in this country.

David Heath: Indeed, and I will turn to the point of dual criminality in a moment, as it is extremely important.
	The second convenient fiction is that those of us who have opposed the measure from the beginning were doing so largely on the basis that it remained unratified by the United States Administration. That is absolutely not the case. Indeed, many of us have argued that ratification is almost irrelevant because of the Government's pre-emptive action of putting the measure into effect in British law a full three years before it was ratified by the United States Senate—we understand that, although it has been passed by the Senate, it is still on the President's desk, and the instruments of ratification have not yet been exchanged. If the treaty is unfair and unequal, ratification is irrelevant, as it is still not in the interests of the United Kingdom and its citizens. That is our point.
	There is a slightly erudite point, which ought at least to be mentioned, as to whether ratification is possible if the amendments are retained in the legislation. Undoubtedly, we would be brought into conflict with the law of international treaties if we have legislation in contradiction of the terms of the treaty that we have signed and ratified. That is a problem for the Government, however, and not for the House, which can only legislate on the basis of the measures before it, and their implications for British citizens. It is an illustration of the folly of using secondary legislation to put into law provisions that were not subject to proper consideration by the House.

David Heath: That is a fair comment but not a genuine concern. We can expect from our Government due protection of British citizens, which should take the form of prima facie evidence, except where there are genuinely reciprocal arrangements for another standard of proof, which we have with several countries. I agree with the comment of the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen that, had the matter been approached properly through a sensible debate and negotiation on the treaty, we could have arrived at a satisfactory conclusion. I also agree that, prior to the latest treaty, we had an imbalance in the other direction. I believe that the American authorities had a marginally higher hurdle to overcome than the British authorities, and I have always made that plain. But I think there was a greater similarity between probable-cause and prima facie evidence, in that both required evidence to be produced and an opportunity for the person accused to refute that evidence before a court of law. That is the difference between the situation then and the situation now: the imbalance is now in the opposite direction. That evidence is not required.
	The Minister got into a bit of a muddle when trying to distinguish between evidence and information in this context, but British citizens are clearly at a disadvantage by comparison with United States citizens. I am arguing first that they should not be at that disadvantage, and secondly that the British Government should not have put them in a position in which they could be at that disadvantage, because it is the duty of the British Government to protect the interests of British citizens. Perhaps the "process" point mentioned by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen, to which I shall return shortly, explains the extraordinary neglect on the Government's part in consideration of the treaty in the first instance.

David Heath: There is no problem if protection of the obligations falls to the signatories to the Council of Europe and its conventions. The United States is not a signatory to the Council of Europe and its provisions, so I think there is a distinction to be made.
	The third convenient fiction has been implied and not stated today, but it has been current in the press. It is that somehow it is in the greater interests of justice for this imbalance to occur, because of the inadequacy of prosecution for white-collar offences in this country. That was almost made explicit by Margaret Cole, director of enforcement of the Financial Services Authority, who pointed out recently that British criminal convictions were "sparse". She attributed that to greater public support for convictions for white-collar crime in the United States, and therefore presumably a greater predisposition of an American jury to convict by comparison with a British jury.
	I have to say first that I consider that an entirely spurious argument, and secondly that, if it is correct, what it suggests is that we have inadequate prosecuting authorities in this area, not that we should send people—effectively under a sub-contracting arrangement—to stand trial in the United States. If there is a perceived inadequacy in this area, the Government should be clear about it, and should ensure that our prosecution authorities and our laws on white-collar crime are as robust as those in the United States.
	We come back to the issue of parity. It has already been pointed out—but I shall do so again, because it is important—that what the Minister told us today is completely at odds with what was said by a Minister of State in the other place during the passage of the original order, and with what a House of Commons Minister, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), said in this Chamber: namely, that there is now a lower requirement for the United States than there is for Britain.
	It is nonsense to say that there is rough parity when there is not—for all the reasons that we have already given—and that there is no difference between having to provide evidence and having to have it questioned in court, and not being subject to that requirement. I hope that that position will not be pursued. Let us be open and honest about it and acknowledge that a lower standard of proof is required, but say that it is in the best interests of the justice systems of the western world, even if it is not equivalent to that of the UK.
	The scope of the treaty is the next important issue. I find it astonishing that we should have had such a clear analysis from Ministers when we opposed the measure in the first instance. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made the point, though he is no longer in his place. A relevant Minister said at the time:
	"We do not have such a range of offences involving financial crime. The cases mentioned by the Financial Times—such as price fixing—would not apply. Dual criminality would have to exist."—[ Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 15 December 2003; c. 26.]
	What do we have now? We have a full case for extradition of a person from this country to the United States to stand trial for price fixing—for a crime that was not a crime under this jurisdiction at the time he may or may not have committed it. That is in direct contradiction of what the House was told when it was asked to support these measures in the first instance.

David Heath: It was precisely Mr. Norris's case to which I referred, if perhaps rather obliquely, as it is not helpful to rehearse in the House arguments for or against a particular individual. What surprises me is that something that we were told categorically could not happen is now happening as a consequence of the Bill.
	Right from the start, I rejected the view that this was all somehow necessary to deal with terrorism and that something had to be rushed through because of the need to deal with terrorist suspects. It was quite clear that the scope was always wider than that. It was always applicable across the whole range of potential criminal activity. Frankly, it appals me that it was ever suggested that this was a limited treaty of extradition. It was never that, as is now clear from current cases.
	We now face circumstances in which the US has bilateral extradition arrangements with 132 states and territories around the world. As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) pointed out earlier, there are just three countries with which the arrangements are not fully reciprocated. The first is France, as no French citizen is allowed to be extradited to stand trial in a foreign country. Those who are not French citizens are happily exported, but not French citizens. Secondly, there is the Republic of Ireland, where a forum position—similar to the Lords amendment—ensures that, in the interests of justice, the appropriate place for a trial is considered. Then there is the UK, where we have sold the pass and are prepared to act with supine acquiescence in everything that the Americans want, simply rolling over and doing as we are told.
	The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen made a point about process that says it all. It is quite clear that this was not a process of negotiation. The then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), went across to Washington and had this treaty presented to him. He was told that it would be very helpful to the US authorities if he would just sign his name at the bottom—"Thank you very much, Mr. Home Secretary, that gives us exactly what we want". Simply reading the treaty is enough to make the point: it is written in American! This is the British version with the crown at the top, but it is written in American English. It is as though it were dictated by the American Secretary of State or attorney general and the British Home Secretary rolled over and said, "Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. That is what we will put into British law".

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right on that last point.
	What should we do with this hopeless treaty? The short answer is that the Government must renegotiate it to ensure that there is a genuine rough parity, rather than an entirely imaginary one. In those negotiations, or even before them, the Government could consider whether the provisions offer latitude for courts to consider matters of forum. I think that that would be entirely appropriate.
	Earlier, the Minister had no response to my earlier question about clause 4 of article 2 in the treaty. It gives our Executive discretion to ensure that justice is done in matters where the Americans claim universal jurisdiction and we do not, but it is not contained in the Extradition Act 2003 or the relevant statutory instruments. I do not understand how the Government can have ignored the treaty's one bit of discretion for preserving British citizens' interests.
	As a legislator in this House, I am entitled to ask why the Government are ratifying a treaty when one of its key provisions in respect of British citizens has not been incorporated into British law. I do not believe that the articles of ratification can be exchanged until the Executive address that gap.
	We are told that other matters to do with protocol and the use of the extradition treaty will be negotiated. I hope that they are reported in full to the House, and that the Government will give us a clear exposition before the Bill finishes its passage through the House. If the amendments are knocked out tonight, I am sure that we will have another opportunity to discuss these matters, so there will be time for the Attorney-General to report back on the progress of his discussions with the Americans.
	Finally, I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that our process for dealing with treaties is disgraceful. It takes us back to the problem of the royal prerogative, which is a relic of a previous age and inconsistent with a modern legislature. Executives should report back to this House on treaty negotiations, and seek its assent on treaties that they have signed. Treaties should be subject to proper scrutiny: never again should unequal provisions of a treaty be put into British law, unilaterally and three years before the other party even considers them for ratification.
	That is an outrage, and an example of the supine acquiescence that has characterised the Government's approach to the treaty. Everything was done in a rush, to please the Americans. The Home Secretary at the time was inadequately briefed in advance, and it is British citizens who will pay the cost.

Michael Howard: I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) for a truly outstanding speech. In saying that, I cast no aspersion on the other outstanding speeches that we have heard so far in this debate. The whole House will be grateful to him for the way in which he shed light on—illuminated—the process by which we find ourselves in our present position and the part that he played in it, which perhaps was not quite as incidental as he sought to portray, and for the analysis that he gave of the problems that we face as a consequence of the series of events that he explained so lucidly.
	I go along with much of the right hon. Gentleman's analysis. We walk step in step, but we part company when it comes to the final conclusion as to how we should cast our votes in the Division Lobby this evening. In truth, I do not believe that the penetrating analysis that he gave the House in the course of that speech supports the conclusion that he purported to have reached, but be that as it may, it was an outstanding speech and the whole House will be grateful to him for what he said.
	The Minister said—this was the only thing on which I agreed with her—that we have discussed these issues ad infinitum. That is true. The reason why we have done so is that the Government have, ad infinitum, refused to see reason on these important matters.
	I will seek to deal head on with the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). I am sorry that he has apparently reached the conclusion that he will not be with us when it comes to voting on Lords amendment No. 36. The damage that has been caused by the injury that he acknowledges takes place is that, as was said clearly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), as a consequence of these arrangements, we afford our citizens a lower degree of protection than the United States affords to its citizens. If anyone is to be extradited from the United States, evidence has to be produced that is contestable in the courts of the United States, but there is no comparable provision for extradition from the United Kingdom. That is the damage. It seems insupportable that this House, which is the guardian of the liberties of our citizens, should accept a lower degree of protection for the liberties of our citizens than is afforded to citizens of the United States under these arrangements.

Chris Bryant: As far as I understand it, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that reciprocity is the absolute principle. However, I wonder whether there is a higher principle than that. According to his argument, France provides more protection for its citizens than we do. However, surely we believe that the French are wrong to do so.

Richard Shepherd: It is clear in my own mind that if we are a democracy and if we hold justice high it is appropriate that any of our constituents who are threatened with withdrawal from our jurisdiction should have a prima facie case brought against them. At the earliest possible stage, they should be able to try to avert the possibility that they will be taken beyond these shores to face judgment in a court elsewhere. I am absolutely sure about that because process and procedure are a key feature of justice. Many hon. Members represent individuals who have been rendered elsewhere or have suffered at Guantanamo, and such occurrences are not to be dismissed lightly. One does not dismiss lightly any citizen who is sought by the authorities of another country. Not all jurisdictions are equally fastidious as ours in ensuring the protection of people's rights.
	Not wishing to make a misjudgment, I make no condemnation of the American system, but the US constitution affirms something on which we used to insist. If a British citizen were sought by the authorities of another country a case had to be made in a British court—that was the bottom line. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), whom I respect, casually said that this is a small injustice in the greater scheme. It is not—it is colossal to each one of us who suffers an injury. Some of the people whom we represent are not articulate and do not have the resources that they need. When they are plucked from our jurisdiction to a distant land, they are frightened and afraid. Proceedings may not even be conducted in their own language.
	The European arrest warrant is an unmitigated affront to our very principles and many Conservative Members opposed its introduction. Similarly, the measure is founded on a treaty which, according to the Court of Appeal, takes precedence over the Human Rights Act 1998, so there is no protection under that Act for the NatWest three who have been taken abroad. I urge the House to vote for the Lords amendments, which give us an opportunity to look at what was entered into by prerogative power, and thus has not received the scrutiny that it deserved, even through it strikes at things as important as liberty, freedom and justice.

Lords amendment: No. 81.
	 Motion made and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment .—[Mr. Tony McNulty.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 272.

Tony McNulty: The amendment would alter the process for making changes to police force areas. There are already perfectly adequate provisions for revising police areas; indeed, those very provisions were substantially revised by the last Administration in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. Under the current arrangements, a merger may take place either if the police authorities concerned have volunteered or if the Home Secretary considers that a merger would be in the interests of the efficiency or effectiveness of policing. In the latter case, the Home Secretary must give notice of his intention to merge forces to the affected police and local authorities, and give them a minimum of four months to submit any objections. The Home Secretary must then consider those objections and respond to them before an order is made. Moreover, with Home Secretary-initiated mergers, the necessary order is subject to the affirmative procedure, so there must be a debate and vote in both Houses.
	The new clause that the amendment would insert removes those two routes, and instead requires both that the police authorities volunteer and that the Home Secretary considers the change to be in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness. I appreciate the value of requiring that the Home Secretary must be satisfied that a voluntary merger would promote the efficient or effective policing of the affected area. But the amendment also removes the ability of the Home Secretary to initiate changes to police areas. It is the function of the Home Secretary to take strategic decisions about policing—that is his traditional role in the tripartite relationship. Decisions about police areas are clearly strategic in nature. Therefore, it is right that the Home Secretary should be able to alter police areas, after proper consultation and with due parliamentary scrutiny. A provision for the Home Secretary to initiate mergers has long been on the statute book—going back to the Police Act 1964, and, indeed, before that, and rightly so. There remains a place for such a provision in the future.
	In making the case for retaining the existing provisions in the Police Act 1996, I can do no better than refer the House to the police reform White Paper of June 1993. It contains the following passage, which rings as true today as it did 13 years ago:
	"The Government considers that...it may be desirable in the long term to reduce the number of police forces...The Government intends to ensure...that it will be possible to implement a programme of police force amalgamations in the future when the time is right...Where in future police force amalgamations become desirable, the Secretary of State will be able to prescribe new police force areas."
	I commend the forethought of the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), and I trust that he will join us in the Division Lobby to reject this amendment, should things come to that.
	I know that the amendment was agreed to in the other place during the controversy over the police merger programme initiated by the previous Home Secretary in response to a report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, "Closing the Gap". That might have skewed its judgement in this matter. I therefore think that it is appropriate to take this opportunity to update the House on where we are now in respect of addressing the gap in forces' capacity and capability to tackle terrorism, serious and organised crime, other threats to public safety and what are generally called level 2, or protective, services.
	On 19 June, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear that he was not going to force through mergers where they were not wanted. As a corollary to that clear statement, the notices of intention to merge that were issued on 3 March and 11 April were withdrawn on 13 July. That is not to say that the problems of providing adequate protective services in a 43-force model have gone away. There is widespread recognition that the status quo is not an option. We need to make progress in enhancing forces' capacity and capability to protect the public from the threats posed by terrorism, serious and organised crime, civil emergencies and similar matters. But we are now more focused on the outcomes we want to achieve, and less on structural questions. I have said before on the public record that I think that in the past we got to a stage where the concerns in the strategic forces and merger debates were more about structure and process than about policing.
	I have written to all chief constables and police authorities, seeking their views on how best to proceed in the absence of mergers. I have followed up that letter with a series of constructive meetings with chief constables and chairs of police authorities, out in the country as well as in London, to hear their views at first hand. As part of that dialogue with the service, we have made it clear that we are open to all possibilities, ranging from collaboration to federation and the lead-force model, and all other permutations. We are ready to do what we can to facilitate any innovative solutions to this issue. There is a real appetite for that debate out in the country in the service, and a recognition that the gaps indicated in O'Connor's report still exist.
	What matters is delivering real improvements in the quality of protective services while protecting neighbourhood policing. That is what we all want to achieve. It is not a culmination, but just next week I shall see all the chief constables and chairs of police authorities in the Home Office for a day that will be spent principally on this matter, although also on other matters to do with policing. The public want their local force to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour. They also want, and deserve, to be properly protected from threats posed by serious organised crime and terrorism, and I am heartened by the willingness that there is among forces and authorities to tackle that issue.
	Accordingly, while we have made it clear that we have no plans to return to the issue of forced force mergers in the foreseeable future, we cannot—and I contend that no responsible Government could—rule out entirely the option of Home Secretary-initiated mergers in future. We must retain the ability to initiate mergers where that would be in the public's best interests because it would enhance their protection. Therefore, I ask the House to reject Lords amendment No. 1.
	Lords amendment No. 71 relates to the Home Secretary's powers to intervene where serious and persistent police performance concerns have arisen. We have listened to the concerns expressed in the other place, and we are bringing forward two changes to our original proposals, which we believe address those worries. Policing is a service that should be delivered and governed locally, but it should also be delivered to a consistent and acceptable standard to all our communities. The responsibility for ensuring that such a service is provided rightly resides with the chief constable and the police authority. But there might be occasions when it becomes clear that a particular local area is receiving an unacceptable standard of policing and the local force and authority have been unable to take the necessary steps to address that.
	Beyond choosing where to live, local people have no effective choice about the police service they receive. For that reason, the Government need to have reserve powers to intervene in those cases where policing has fallen below an acceptable level and other non-statutory resolutions to performance issues have proved insufficient. Our proposals in the Bill as passed by this House modify the reserve powers to intervene in an underperforming force or police authority. I should stress that we are not taking new powers; in the case of police authorities, these powers have existed since 1994, and in the case of police forces, they have existed since 2002.

Tony McNulty: Let me return to that shortly, if inspiration comes my way; otherwise I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the matter. The question he asks is an entirely fair one.

Nick Herbert: It is generally true that the public have been left behind in the reorganisation of public services—the police are not alone in being reorganised. The public have not been properly consulted about health service and police changes. We tried to draw that major point to the Government's attention when the proposals were considered.
	Before the interventions, I was considering the absence of parliamentary debate. Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members always initiated discussion and the Government tried to avoid parliamentary debate. That was one of the worst aspects of their proposals for mergers. They drove the process to an absurdly tight timetable, giving police authorities only three months to prepare their cases before Christmas, and ignored the offer that we made in February to allow a year for proper consultation. They gravely damaged the perceived independence of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, and many Conservative Members fear that the inspectorate's reputation was unnecessarily undermined by the Government's pressing for early publication of an inadequate report. The Government proceeded regardless of the financial implications, and before they had secured adequate financing from the Treasury to make even the first voluntary merger, between Cumbria and Lancashire, work.
	As the Home Office director general of crime, policing and counter-terrorism said last month, the process was
	"not well enough planned... not well enough managed".
	That is a masterpiece of official understatement. What did the Government achieve? They secured a delay in voluntary co-operation, which we and the Association of Police Authorities had urged, to strengthen protective services, and a bill of more than £10 million that police authorities incurred in preparation for amalgamation. The Government have had to pay compensation for that—money that will come from the police budget.
	The expensive waste of police time has made us wary of potential abuse of the power to force mergers in future. The Minister said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) had originally proposed that power, but I could as easily have quoted the then shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who opposed it and warned that forcing police mergers without proper process would be
	"a denial of constitutional principle".
	We cannot support the retention of that power unless the Government reassure the House that it will be exercised properly.
	I therefore request five key reassurances. If the Minister can provide them, we will feel more comfortable about allowing the power to remain the Bill. First, we need to be confident that other options for improving protective services or otherwise enhancing force co-operation have been exhausted before the Government resort to amalgamation. The Minister has told the press that the power will be used as "absolutely" the "last resort". Similarly, Baroness Scotland said that it would be used only as a "last resort" and a "back-stop". It would be helpful if the Minister repeated that assurance in those words today.
	Secondly, a proper case must be made for amalgamations with robust, costed and preferably independent evaluation of the options. Many of us believed that the O'Connor report—the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary—on which the Government relied to pursue amalgamations fulfilled none of those criteria.
	Thirdly, adequate public consultation must take place, and not only during the statutory period of four months' consultation once the Home Secretary has decided to press ahead with a force merger. There must be proper consultation with local people, police authorities, police forces and hon. Members before then.
	Fourthly, the Minister mentioned due parliamentary scrutiny, which I welcome. However, there must be proper parliamentary consultation—not simply a short debate on any order that is laid, but proper debate on all the issues relevant to a compulsory merger, which, as Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary conceded in the report, has constitutional significance.
	Fifthly, we must have an assurance that the financial implications have been tackled, not least precept equalisation, which effectively sank the merger between Cumbria and Lancashire.
	I hope that the Minister accepts that those requirements are reasonable. Let me repeat them, because I am serious about our offer. First, we must be confident that all the options for improving services have been exhausted and that the power will be used as a last resort. Secondly, a proper case for amalgamation must be made. Thirdly, there should be genuine public consultation. Fourthly, proper parliamentary consultation and scrutiny must take place. Fifthly, we need an assurance about the financial implications.
	We previously sought a local referendum on force mergers and an independent cost-benefit analysis of the proposals. We do not request those checks today. We simply ask the Government to assure us that, if force mergers become necessary—in the main, Conservative Members hope that they do not—they will conduct the process properly and thoroughly. I hope that the Minister can give us the reassurances that we seek about the process. If so, we will not try to oppose him when he asks the House to retain the power for force mergers as a last resort. We dislike the power, but the reassurances will give us the knowledge that the House and, importantly, the other place, can hold the Government to them should we and they consider and vote on a proposed merger in future.
	I welcome the Minister's acknowledgement that there should be a debate on outcomes rather than structures. We will support him in encouraging voluntary co-operation between forces to strengthen protective services. We accept that the gap needs to be closed and that the issue is important. We urge police authorities to be serious and to take forward as robustly as possible the proposals to make savings, which they can reinvest in protective services. Such savings should be achievable through sharing, for example, back-office functions. We support the Government on that.
	Despite the concessions that I acknowledge that the Minister has made, we are not happy about the new power that the Government seek to direct police forces and intervene in their performance. Lords amendment No. 71 deals with that. The Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers perceived the power as a major shift in the tripartite balance between chief constables, police authorities and the Home Secretary, and an unwelcome step towards the accrual of central power. I acknowledge that the Government amendments would, to some extent, redress the balance, but they are not adequate to allay our concerns.
	The Home Secretary can currently intervene only in the case of a negative report from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. However, under the proposals, the Home Secretary could intervene without such a report. The intervention could be based on his or her opinion, and the measure contains no definition of failure to discharge any of a police force's or authority's functions effectively. Indeed, the Government could intervene pre-emptively, so that the Secretary of State could divine that forces or authorities were about to under-perform.

Lynne Featherstone: It will come as no surprise that the Liberal Democrats will seek to retain both Lords amendments.
	First, the extremely hostile reaction by police forces and local people up and down the land to the Government's impossibly bullying and prescriptive—not to mention rushed and expensive—merger proposals was hardly surprising. The reaction was compelling, because it was a challenge not just to the future shape of our police forces but to the improper haste of the proposal, the consultation process, the cost and the consequences. In addition, the proposal to merge police forces threatened a double whammy for local communities. Undoubtedly, people recognised that they would be expected to fork out more council tax for the funding gap and for harmonisation between different councils, while having less of a say as to how their police force was run.
	All hon. Members understood that there was a need to address gaps in the service, particularly with regard to level 2 crime, and recognised that smaller forces sometimes struggle with complex cases. Forcing a construct on them, however, was not the answer. The not so subtle carrot of the Government bribe—a share in the £125 million on offer for the good boys who volunteered to merge—was somewhat distasteful. The Government say that they are in favour of neighbourhood policing and local accountability. We support them in that. They say that they want a police service that is fit for purpose in the 21st century. We support them in that. Those are both laudable objectives. But then the Government's merger proposals zoomed off in a direction that would not deliver those objectives.
	The insistence that police forces should merge even where local opinion was firmly against that, where the results could have been damaging for effective policing, and when the Government had not given any alternatives an opportunity to be debated let alone trialled, resulted in forces that did not want to merge in the way prescribed by the Government, and some rebelled to the point of legal action. I welcome the move to discussing outcomes rather than structures, which I have always felt was a more productive approach, and the Lords amendment cleverly puts the decision to merge or reconfigure police forces back into the hands of police authorities. As the royal commission took two years to produce a report, and legislation took a further year, I also welcome the Minister's statement that he is open to all suggestions and will take his time to talk to people about the future.
	The downfall of the Government's proposals resulted from a previously cavalier approach to change. Merger is a serious business; any change in structure is. The eye is taken off the ball for many months as energies are put into change rather than front-line services. Mergers are more often unsuccessful than successful in the business world, and are not a panacea to paper over cracks. Targeted responses are more appropriate.
	Research has shown unequivocally that about 80 per cent. of all mergers in the private sector either fail completely or perform worse than the previous individual organisations. One of the main negative consequences is that even if we get the merger right we create winners and losers, and while that dip in morale takes place, productivity declines. Even in the best of mergers, one can expect a minimum of 18 months to pass before efficiencies are recovered. If such a dramatic change is to be successful, buy-in is necessary from all stakeholders—local people, as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said, police officers, staff and local authorities. Otherwise, structural change has not a flying cat's chance—

Lynne Featherstone: I am grateful, to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for sitting down too soon.
	Lords amendment No. 71 concerns intervention in a failing police force. When a police force is failing, people will indeed want to be protected by Government intervention to ensure that they are safe and have a police force that delivers. There is no dispute about that. However, although the Government talk of localism and local policing, the Bill proposes to centralise power in the hands of the Home Secretary by empowering him to intervene directly in any police force that he believes is failing, or—even more scarily—any police force that he believes may fail in the future.
	The critical issue for us is the lack of objective criteria by which such a power would be invoked. I acknowledge that the Minister has made some moves, but there is no actual commitment or specific detail. Gone is the need for a negative report cataloguing and evidencing failure, although there has been a marginal concession in that consultation, or the opinions of the inspectorate, will be published. The Government have gone a little way towards limiting the powers. The changes mean that an authority must be failing before the Home Secretary can intervene, or the authority must first request an intervention. However, the new relationship will change the tripartite balance, and given the constitutional implications, I do not think that the Minister's offer goes far enough to provide adequate safeguards.
	The Home Secretary will direct the chief officer and/or the police authority to undertake specific measures to correct and address any failure that he perceives. That power goes beyond anything we have seen to date, and despite assurances in Committee that it would be used solely as a "last resort"—that appeared only in the explanatory notes—or when forces were failing, the Bill still contains no explanation or definition of "last resort" or "failing".
	Not only can the Home Secretary intervene if he believes that a force is failing, but as I have said, he can intervene if he believes that it may fail. The Home Secretary may be very talented in many ways, but I do not think that he is a clairvoyant. I do not understand how he can predict whether a force will fail. According to what criteria will that prediction be made?
	The Liberal Democrats entirely support the idea of the police and police authorities being able to request help, but although the Government have moved somewhat and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary will now have some involvement, the Government have not said how, why or to what degree. The definition of that safeguard is far too unspecific, and the Government have given no commitments other than their commitment to publish the inspectorate's opinions.
	Without independent scrutiny and examination, and without the oversight of a specialist agency making an assessment and a judgment, the way is still open for inappropriate intervention. The only rationale for such intervention—its sole basis— must be proper assessments of the performance and operational ability of a force. We are told that the triggers for intervention will be broadened, because the Home Secretary will be able to look at national performance assessments of police forces, or ask the new chief inspector of inspectorates for an opinion. I hope that that would happen in any case, but I am not reassured that it is in itself a safeguard.
	No one is saying that the Government do not have a duty to intervene when things are going wrong. What we want is a definition of "going wrong". We must have objective criteria in the Bill so that we can judge what "wrong" is, and there must be a genuine and evidential base for intervention. There is a danger that the Home Secretary will find himself micro-managing the police. It would be better to ensure that intervention occurs only when a force itself asks for help, or when a force is measurably and irrefutably failing to meet its performance and operational standards.
	It is a great shame that the Government appear to have so little faith in the professionalism of the police, police authorities, inspectorates and chief officers. Unless and until we can be completely assured that objective criteria will be used to evaluate "failure", and unless and until we have a definitive and measurable quantum for what constitutes "last resort", we still cannot support measures that would compromise the operational independence of our police forces.

Tony McNulty: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	We have had a reasonable and reflective debate, rightly looking at some of the contextual issues around mergers in the summer. I do not deprecate that—it is perfectly reasonable in that context. It seems rather strange that I have prayed in aid the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) has prayed in aid my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—and long may that continue in one way or another. I take seriously the points raised and also some of the offers suggesting what I need to do to resist a vote, at least on the first set of amendments. First, though, I shall look at the general context of the points raised by hon. Members.
	I commend the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) for his honesty. He said—and I think that it would resonate with all of us—that his local constituents could not care less about protective services and level 2 crime. I accept that and it is part of our difficulty—mine as Minister with responsibility for policing, hon. Members' as responsible MPs, and the police forces. The only time they have concerns about level 2 provision is when it is needed but is not there. Beyond that, their immediate concern is volume crime, neighbourhood policing and whether local police are visible and accountable, as they should be, on our streets. I commend the hon. Gentleman for his honesty, and it goes to the heart of the debate—a debate that we are not planning to have in the near future, but one that I have had since I assumed this role last May, at the tail end of the mergers debate. I have certainly tried to deal with those matters since July when the mergers fell away—or whatever description people want to use. We then got into seriously discussions about wither public protective services, if not through the mergers route. It is one of the dilemmas that we face.

Mike O'Brien: Essentially we are looking at petty offences, although some of them, such as theft, concern people a great deal. We are certainly considering shoplifting and some aspects of criminal damage. We are also considering disorderly and antisocial behaviour.

Mike O'Brien: I sought to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman's colleagues who have asked me questions. If I can make progress, we should be able to deal with the matter under discussion and move on to others.
	The scheme has worked well, as I said, but the conditions that can be attached must have the objective of either rehabilitating the offender, or ensuring that he makes reparation—for example, by paying compensation for the offence. The petrol thief would pay compensation for the cost of the petrol, or could do something by way of rehabilitation, such as writing a letter of apology. Such conditions are undoubtedly useful, as they provide the offender with an opportunity to take part in rehabilitative programmes, especially to deal with alcohol or drug abuse. For example, a drug-using prostitute might be given the condition of attending a drug clinic, and that might help them to deal with the real cause of some of their problems.
	Offenders have widely accepted the opportunity to pay compensation to the victim for the damage caused by their offending behaviour. The important result is that the victim typically receives compensation without experiencing the usual delay associated with the court process. However, that restricts the scheme only to those cases in which there is an identifiable victim who has suffered quantifiable loss, or in which the offending is linked to an underlying personal problem that can be the subject of an order. A fine or punishment, such as some form of work in the community, is not currently allowed. The petrol thief, for example, could benefit from learning a lesson by having to pay a fine as a deterrent, but at the moment we have to go to the expense of going to court to ensure that that happens.
	During the implementation and operation of the scheme, we identified some limitations in the legislation. For example, the term "reparation" implies putting right the specific harm or damage that the offender caused, but there are occasions when that is not possible. The harm may have already been put right by the victim—he may have repaired what was damaged—or it may be impossible to identify the specific damage caused by the offender.
	Punitive conditions would allow the offender to make another contribution towards paying for the damage caused, such as undertaking work in the community that is not directly related to the offence. Not all offences will involve quantifiable loss, but they may still disadvantage the local community. Punitive conditions that form part of a conditional caution could allow an offender to undertake unpaid work that benefits the local community and its residents to make good the harm caused by antisocial or disorderly behaviour—in other words, it would allow community payback.
	Another type of condition that the provision would enable is fines. Three quarters of the wide range of cases that come before the magistrates court are dealt with by way of a fine—sometimes a small one, as I indicated. Although the main objectives of the conditional caution scheme are to ensure that reparation or rehabilitation takes place, the availability of a condition that the offender pay a fine would improve the ability of the scheme to provide a tailored response to offending. This condition would not be at the expense of other, more suitable conditions.
	Currently the police can issue a penalty notice to punish the offender, and the CPS can give a conditional caution where the object is to compensate the victim. There may be cases where the appropriate response is to include both of these measures. Prosecutors will also need to ensure that where a financial penalty condition is imposed, it is proportionate, appropriate and achievable. So, in the case of the defendant who drove off without paying for petrol, a fine could be imposed as well as a requirement to make compensation and perhaps write a letter of apology. All those penalties would have to be proportionate, appropriate and achievable.
	We believe that it is consistent with the aims of a fair, equitable and proportionate scheme to provide prosecutors with a limited amount of discretion to impose a condition of payment of a fine, and to allow mitigating factors and the means of the offender to be taken into account in assessing the size of that fine.
	As I said, there are a number of safeguards built into the scheme to protect the rights of the offender. It is important to reiterate those. They include the opportunity for free legal advice, the requirement of an admittance of guilt by the offender, and acceptance of the conditional caution in writing. Again, I emphasise that an offender can always choose to reject the offer of a conditional caution and instead go to court, so the offender always has a choice. In the event of non-compliance with a conditional caution, the offender can be prosecuted for the original offence. There is no additional sanction.
	I have already referred to the safeguards that we have built into the scheme, but I am aware that there are still some concerns. I will listen with care to the concerns that are likely to be expressed from the Opposition Benches and we will consider them. We want to ensure that we can consider punitive penalties, as well as rehabilitative and reparational ones. An extension of the scheme to include punitive conditions will require a revision of the conditional cautions code of practice and would be subject to public consultation and to the affirmative resolution procedure in the House. This will ensure transparency and provide both Houses with an opportunity for further discussion on more detailed aspects of the scheme.
	In conclusion, the Government believe that the clause allowing for punitive conditions is a sensible and considered addition to the conditional cautions scheme. It provides the opportunity to deal fairly with offenders willing to admit their guilt. It also allows a swift and proportionate response that is effective and has adequate safeguards. I urge the House to overturn Lords Amendment No. 5.

Nick Herbert: We supported conditional cautions which were intended to enable the rehabilitation of offenders or ensure that they made reparation for the offences that they had committed, but we believe that punitive conditional cautions, which attach a punishment to a caution, enter new and dangerous territory. First, an important issue of principle is at stake. By definition, cautioning should not involve punishment. The expression "punitive caution" is a contradiction in terms—a classic oxymoron, rather like "military intelligence", "conservative intellectual" or, for that matter, "new Labour".
	Punishment should be decided by the courts. It is wrong for prosecution to be involved. That is a legal principle which, as the Solicitor-General knows better than I, has been enshrined since the Bill of Rights, which provided
	"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void".
	It is for that reason that the Magistrates' Association has described the proposals as
	"contrary to the principles of justice".
	The Government's argument that the principle is already conceded in relation to fixed penalties, which has been deployed during consideration of the Bill, is wrong. As Lord Lloyd of Berwick pointed out in the other place,
	"fixed penalties are entirely different. The amount is fixed by statute or by-law; it does not in any way involve the prosecution's discretion".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 10 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 124.]
	These proposals will turn prosecutors into sentencers.

Nick Herbert: I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's point, but I think that there is a difference in principle, because the fixed penalty is statutorily prescribed, whereas this procedure requires an offender to admit their guilt and then accept a caution, which will be decided by the prosecutor according to a variable measure. That potential variation turns the prosecutor into a sentencer, whereas a fixed penalty is fixed by this House and known in advance. The procedure will confuse the roles of sentencer and prosecutor, which lies at the heart of the concern expressed by the Magistrates Association and others.
	The Government have said that offenders can choose to refuse a caution, but the concern is that people will feel pressured to accept a caution and the administrative punishment that follows rather than going through a prosecution, even if they are innocent, either because they fear what the prosecution might involve or because they do not feel well advised.

Charles Walker: But am I not right in thinking that, if someone appears before a magistrates court, that court will not take into account their earnings, income or savings, and that if they are found guilty in a magistrates court, they will still have a fine levied on them? So the magistrates court does not take into consideration their ability to pay either. Maybe I am wrong.

Douglas Hogg: If it is put to the vote, I am going to support the Lords amendment. I regret that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) when he says that there is a distinction of principle between fixed penalties and conditional cautions. They are the same. I agree that the sentence—if that is the word that my hon. Friend used—is variable in conditional cautions, but the general proposition is identical in each case. The prosecution, in the case of fixed penalties, is creating a situation whereby there is an adjudication of guilt, and the sentence is less important than the adjudication of guilt. So I am afraid that, as to the matter of principle, I cannot support my hon. Friend.
	I turn, however, to an issue where I am on the same side as my hon. Friend. Listening to the Solicitor-General, it became plain to me that, although he himself might not wish conditional cautions to be extended to a range of offences that you and I would class as serious, Madam Deputy Speaker, that remains a possibility. I accept that he spoke of an unwillingness on his part to see them extended to burglary, but it is clearly possible that, over time, they could be. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) referred to class A drugs and the carrying of a knife, as, indeed, did the Solicitor-General. My own feeling is that conditional cautions would be wholly inappropriate to those classes of offence.
	We have identified the possibility that conditional cautions will be extended much further than we are presently contemplating. We all know that the parliamentary controls on extending the range of offences to which such a penalty can apply are very limited. I assume—I have not checked—that it is done by statutory instrument. We all know that the order-making powers confer on the Executive very large discretion, and that we have very limited ability to constrain them. So for that reason, if the Lords amendment is put to the vote, I shall support it. I do not wish to see conditional cautions extended to, for example, burglary, carrying a knife or actual bodily harm.

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) described the proposals as alarming. Hyperbole has been employed on many occasions, but that description constitutes substantial hyperbole. We plan an extension of conditional cautions, which will enable us to achieve proportionality and an appropriate response to minor criminal behaviour. Such behaviour is often tackled through fines in magistrates courts throughout the land.
	The hon. Gentleman presented three arguments. The first was one of principle, the second covered magistrates courts and the objections of the Magistrates Association and the third suggested that the proposals constituted soft law. However, I note that Conservative Members oppose imposing fines, while Labour Members want to ensure that criminals are properly tackled and that the condition of a fine can apply to those who accept a conditional caution.
	In considering the issue of principle, the key element is that the defendant must always consent to the conditional caution. That safeguard will always exist. The issue of principle that the hon. Gentleman identified was the court's need to impose a discretionary penalty. In Scotland, the procurator fiscal has imposed penalties for several years, including a series of fixed penalties. They can be £25, £50, £75 or £100. Following public opinion polls that show considerable support for increasing the amounts, an increase to a much higher figure is being considered.
	There have been elements of discretion in the criminal justice system for as long as it has existed. For example, the police have discretion over whether to arrest someone for a minor offence. There is also discretion over whether to prosecute, within specific limitations. Again, it is important that no defendant has such a punishment imposed on him. If he rejects the conditional caution, he simply goes to court. He gets free legal advice about whether to accept the conditional caution.
	The hon. Gentleman suggested that some sort of pressure or coercion could be exerted. Again, as always with a caution, the question arises of whether someone wants to go to court and risk its verdict or admit guilt and accept the caution. That applies now. We want to ensure that there are appropriate ways in which the penalties are considered. When the Joint Committee on Human Rights considered the conditional cautions in the 2003 Act, it was satisfied that the safeguards attached to the caution were sufficient to ensure that consent would be truly voluntary and that undue coercion would not be applied.
	The hon. Gentleman's second argument applied to the magistrates court. I am a great supporter of the magistrates court, which is a fine way of doing justice. However, much work is going through the magistrates court and some of it is fairly low level, involving, for example, petty offences. That, especially given current high arrest rates, means that work has crowded into magistrates courts, leading to substantial delays. A few weeks ago I was in Hertfordshire, where it can take eight months to put on a trial. That time has been reduced, through the work of the magistrates court. In February, it was listing trials for 2007.
	Magistrates courts are good at contested cases and serious cases. We should give them the credit that they deserve for the serious cases, rather than making them deal with many low-level petty offences, most of which they tackle through a standard fine. A conditional caution could deal successfully with many such offences. When conditional cautions have been tried in the pilot areas, victims' response to a fairly quick result and getting the compensation paid has been positive. Many of the Magistrates Association's objections are therefore without genuine foundation, because there is no attempt to devalue magistrates courts. On the contrary, the aim is to increase the value of their work.

Charles Walker: In July the Home Secretary caught the mood of the House when he talked about doubling the prison sentence for carrying a knife. Will the Solicitor-General assure us that conditional cautions will not be used for people carrying knives, just as they will not be used in cases of burglary?

Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that it is in order.
	There are occasions when I feel ashamed to be a Member of this House. The next group of amendments relates to Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons. Because of the guillotine process, when the Bill was last before the House of Commons there was no opportunity for us to debate that issue on Report or Third Reading. The Bill then went to the other place, where the subject was debated for almost a day. The Government were defeated, and the other place said that the inspector should remain. The Government purported to make a concession, which they withdrew on Third Reading by giving the Secretary of State powers of intervention and direction.
	Tonight we shall reach 10 pm without having had any opportunity to debate the inspectorate of prisons at all. I submit that that is something of which this House should feel thoroughly ashamed, in view of the work done by people like Judge Tumim, Anne Owers and the present inspector of prisons. It is a disgrace. I can do no more than ask for you, Mr. Speaker, or someone else to start giving the House and Back Benchers some protection. Otherwise, I do not think that people outside can begin to understand how the House conducts its business.

Barbara Keeley: I am pleased to have the opportunity to present a petition from my constituent, Mrs. Sandra Wolverton, and residents of Boothstown, Ellenbrook and Worsley. My constituents are experiencing extreme difficulties because bus services on which they relied have been cut entirely or re-routed. Constituents who are older or who have disabilities are particularly hard hit by the changes, and they find that accessing GP appointments or other services in the community and shopping have become very difficult. I commend the petition of the people of Boothstown, Ellenbrook and Worsley, signed by over 300 people, to the House.
	The petition declares:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Transport Secretary to request the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority to discuss with local transport providers ways in which bus services can be re-instated on routes where they have been recently cut.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Brian H Donohoe: I welcome the debate this evening on the regulation of the franchise industry.
	As you know, Mr. Speaker, you and I have similar backgrounds—you were an apprentice at Rolls-Royce Hillington, and I was an apprentice at Ailsa Shipbuilding in Troon. We both had jobs which were fairly secure, but others went into business, which is, perhaps, more difficult. I thought that there was some security in the franchise industry, but I have been proven wrong, as have a number of people, which is why I welcome this debate. Business people take risks to succeed in setting up businesses, but tonight I want to explode the myth that the franchise industry is a relatively safe industry in comparison with fully fledged business.
	I want to mention the case of a business man in my constituency, Andy Walker, who has been self-employed for some 30 years, during 15 of which he operated a furniture company in Kilmarnock. He looked into the new venture to see exactly where it would lead him. He took his life savings, sold his furniture business and made his house available as collateral for setting up the business, which shows that he did not take the decision lightly. He researched the company involved long and hard by using the internet; he held discussions with the British Franchise Association; and he went to his bank. They all let him down, but those examples show the robust approach taken by Mr. Walker in trying to establish whether the concern would be supported.
	The business was trading as 24 Self Video Ltd., but somewhere along the line that changed to RAS Partnership, which was part of a franchise network for renting DVDs. There were initially three directors of 24 Self Video Ltd., two of whom have subsequently been disqualified having hidden behind the front man—Michael Duffy, who was the managing director. He has a clear record and has intimated to me and to others that he took no part in the business. In other words, as I said, he was being used as a front man. The second director was one Tony Sacco, who, as Mr. Walker and I have subsequently discovered, has been disqualified from holding a directorship until 2009.
	A third individual, Martin Reilly, has been disqualified as a director until at least the middle of 2007. The interesting fact about Mr. Reilly is that he changed the spelling of his name from Reilly to Riley for the purposes of the company. That is significant, because it is a first indication of evasion in the setting up of the franchise and the company itself. My first question for the Minister, whom I am glad to see in his place, is this: other than that disqualification, was any further action ever taken against Mr. Reilly? For instance, has he ever ended up in court on a matter related to this directorship or to the many more directorships that he has held, all of which ended over a period of years?
	In the period from February 2003 to December 2005, some 30 outlets in the industry opened, 15 of which have closed with a loss in each case of some £120,000. That adds up to some £2 million that people have invested and lost. RAS Partnership has accrued an income, almost exclusively profit, of almost £4 million, yet of the 15 outlets remaining, none has reported any profits of any description. All those people thought that they were protected through the British Franchise Association, but all were let down. I say to the Minister and to those in the industry that it is time that much tighter regulation was considered.
	The bank involved has also failed and is guilty of clouding the issue of the assistance that it gave when the franchise was being set up. It seems to me, to Mr. Walker and to the others involved that all the bank seems to care about is that the money loaned to the individuals—some £70,000—is repaid in full, and that it does not matter what form that repayment takes, even if it leads to an individual's house being taken from them. The bank involved is the Royal Bank of Scotland and its associated bank in England, NatWest. Those banks, and their branches, lent money to the franchise although no other bank in the United Kingdom would do so, believing that something was wrong. Indeed, it is alleged that a Mr. Johnson of NatWest, who was a senior financial adviser in Warrington, was a drinking buddy of Mr. Martin Reilly. It so happened that the loan was subsequently arranged by the Royal Bank of Scotland.
	What has been done by Mr. Walker and by my office? Mr. Walker has written to the Royal Bank of Scotland's chief executive, Sir Fred Goodwin, who has sent three letters in response. He says that the bank takes absolutely no responsibility as it is not deemed to have given any advice on this occasion. What else are the banks there for in relation to this industry? We have also written to the BFA, which was initially most unhelpful in responding to any of my requests in connection with this case. It states that it takes no responsibility whatsoever and that
	"the fact a franchiser is or was in the BFA offers only assurance that the business concerned succeeded in meeting our accreditation criteria at the time they were assessed."
	That is outrageous. The association should have regulations in place so that, at the very least, these companies are investigated and their financial returns examined; it should also be established that the directors have not been disqualified.
	The fact remains that my constituent Andy Walker—and others, it has to be said—have been badly let down by the company, which bears a degree of responsibility, and the BFA. The bank has done nothing of any use whatsoever for the individuals concerned, who stand to lose everything. The process needs to be examined and reshaped, so that individuals are in some way protected. If a more severe form of self-regulation cannot be introduced, the Government must introduce regulations. It must be mandatory that the BFA be advised of any franchisee closures, in order that prospective franchisers can be notified. According to my research, that is the system in the United States. I ask the Minister to look into that.
	The BFA must make much more rigorous checks of its franchises and ensure that they are reviewed far more frequently. It is plainly wrong for an individual to be able to form a partnership while disqualified from being a director. Even the BFA was sufficiently concerned to write to the Department of Trade and Industry's company investigation team about this issue. If the Minister cannot tell me tonight what the likelihood is of overcoming this problem, I would like him to write to me. I want the bank seriously to consider its position regarding the outstanding loans, and I want the BFA to be far more proactive, or to face imposed regulations. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Malcolm Wicks: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Donohoe) for securing this short debate and for the clarity with which he expressed his concerns, which arise from the sad experience of one of his constituents. It is worth setting out the context of those concerns, which is the practice of franchising.
	Franchising, which is of course a well known form of relationship between businesses, is essentially a matter of packaging an existing brand or business identity. The brand owner licenses the use of the brand, trademarks and know-how to another person, in return for payment. The franchising model is extensively used; indeed, the  Financial Times has estimated that if sales by US franchise businesses were translated into national product, they would rank as the seventh largest economy in the world. That gives some idea of the scale. It is estimated that some 330,000 people are employed in the United Kingdom as a direct result of franchising, and the turnover of these businesses is in excess of £10 billion.
	From the brand owner's point of view, franchising offers the opportunity to develop the business more rapidly than they could with their own resources. For the prospective franchisee, there are some clear advantages. Buying a franchise offers the benefits of an established brand and a proven business model, rather than having to build a business from scratch. The franchisee benefits from the brand owner's own promotion of the brand, and the brand owner provides support in the form of training, marketing assistance and know-how of various kinds. Given that the business concept is already proven, it can be easier to raise finance.
	However, there are of course disadvantages, too. There are payments to be made to the brand owner, which reduce the potential profits. The franchisee is obliged to adhere to the established model and obtain approval for any changes. The business can be sold only to someone approved by the brand owner, who can go out of business.
	On balance—of course, I generalise—franchising appears to offer an effective way of starting a business. The annual franchise survey by NatWest shows that a large majority of franchisees are satisfied with the business relationship and would recommend it to someone who was considering buying a franchise. It is often claimed that the failure rate for new franchise businesses is less than that for new businesses generally. There is some economic evidence for this, although I am cautious about it because it is not conclusive.
	We have all however learned the lesson that, where there are opportunities, there are also risks. Anyone considering buying a franchise needs to assess the opportunities and the risks with as much care as if he were buying an independent business. There is a good deal of help available for that. The Business Link network, which the Department supports, offers helpful advice to anyone who is starting a business, including specific advice on buying a franchise. However, that and any other general advice is not enough on its own. Anyone considering a franchise opportunity is strongly advised to take independent professional advice on the specific opportunity in relation to his particular circumstances before making financial commitments.
	It appears that my hon. Friend's constituent took the plunge, and that things have gone very wrong. I heard the constituent's story with much sadness, as anyone else would. Many factors may, of course, be involved, but one point in my hon. Friend's speech is of immediate concern to me. He said that two people closely connected with the brand owner are disqualified directors. That is, of course, a serious matter. Anyone disqualified from acting as a director is also disqualified from any direct or indirect involvement in the management of a company or limited liability partnership. Any breach of those restrictions is a criminal offence. The Department maintains an enforcement hotline so that anyone can report evidence of such breaches promptly. I assure my hon. Friend that those matters are treated very seriously. I hope that he will encourage his constituent to report the evidence as soon as possible so that it can be investigated. He could help facilitate that.
	I am happy to discuss the specific case further with my hon. Friend, but let us move beyond it today. My hon. Friend suggests that there is a need for some specific regulation of franchising. I have to say that I am not at this stage convinced that that is necessary or desirable. A franchise business is, in most respects, a business like any other. If the brand owner has a sufficiently attractive business offer in the first place, and conducts his affairs well, he may prosper. If his franchisees are prudent and conduct their businesses competently, they may prosper, too.
	To be sure, things will not always work out. If businesses are to be allowed the freedom to prosper, it follows that they are also free to fail. In a dynamic market economy, the Government cannot insure businesses against the possibilities of failure. Of course, my hon. Friend does not ask us to do that. We can and should maintain controls against fraud, deception, anti-competitive practices and irresponsible behaviour by those who manage companies. I have already mentioned the controls that exist on disqualified directors.
	To go beyond those general regimes and institute special controls on franchising, however, it would have to be shown that those businesses are especially risky or hazardous. There are undoubtedly risks, and some are specific to franchising. Anyone who considers buying a franchise needs to consider them carefully and seek advice, as I have stressed. As I have also said, our Business Link website provides helpful advice to anyone who is starting a business, including specific advice on buying a franchise. That highlights the advantages and disadvantages of franchising, and points to further sources of advice, including the banks and the BFA.
	To make a special case for special controls on franchising, however, it would have to be shown that those businesses are especially risky or hazardous. The evidence, such as it is, does not support that idea. Although it is not conclusive, it does not suggest that franchises are more risky than other forms of business start-ups. Of course, any deception or fraud must be properly tackled, and it will be. But at the end of the day, the Government cannot insure businesses against the possibility of failure. I hope that this evening's short debate, and the painful experience of my hon. Friend's constituent, will serve to draw attention to some of the downside risks involved, and those should not be underplayed. I do not want to end on such a downbeat note, however. We should not lose sight of the fact that new business start-ups are a vital seed bed for future growth and prosperity in our economy. They are a source of innovation, competition and new ideas, and they create more jobs than established business at all points of the economic cycle.
	The Department of Trade and Industry works closely with the regional development authorities to ensure that start-ups are offered appropriate business support. Those who wish to start new businesses should of course think carefully and weigh up the risks as well as the opportunities, but they should not be unnecessarily put off. As I have said, there are sources of advice available for anyone considering starting a business.
	I again thank my hon. Friend for raising these important issues this evening. I hope that he will understand why I have not responded directly in regard to the individual circumstances that he has described, but I shall be more than happy to discuss the matter with him in due course.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.
	Correction
	 Official Report, 20 October 2006: In col. 1200, first Bill, delete "Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved" and insert—" Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	 No day named."